In “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin”, Donna Hathaway analyzes the impact of human and non-human activity on the planet, implying that there may be a tipping point that changes the “game” of life on Earth for everyone and everything. She introduces several new names to describe different aspects of this change, including the Anthropocene, Plantationocene, and Capitalocene. Before defining what these words mean, it is important to identify and define the root “cene”. “Cene” comes from the Greek word “kainos” which means new or recent. It is commonly used in scientific terminology to refer to a specific geological time period or epoch. In geology, an epoch is a division of time that is longer than an age, but shorter than a period. Our current epoch is the Holoscene, which began about 11 700 years ago, following the last ice age.

The Anthropocene is a proposed geological epoch marked by significant human effect on Earth’s geology and ecosystems, notably in recent centuries. An example of the Anthropocene can be the increasd level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as a result of increased burning of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution.The Plantationocene is a phrase used to define the time period beginning in the 16th century and lasting till the present day, during which large-scale plantation agriculture arose as a defining element of global capitalism. The term “Plantationocene” alludes to the systematic exploitation of people and the environment for the benefit of a few, as well as the associated forms of power and inequality that still exist today. The widespread conversion of forests and other natural ecosystems into monoculture plantations for cash crops such as coffee, rubber, palm oil, and sugarcane is an example of the Plantationocene. This has resulted in major deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and other environmental issues, notably in the world’s tropical regions. Slavery and colonialism’s historical legacies have also affected the social and economic institutions that drive these processes of land use change and environmental degradation. Some researchers refer to the current age as the Capitalocene, in which capitalism has become the main factor shaping human society and the environment. It refers to how capitalist systems modify the Earth’s ecosystems, frequently resulting in environmental deterioration and socioeconomic injustice.

While these are all interesting concepts, I was more curious about their relationship to literature. The notions of the Anthropocene, Plantationocene, and Capitalocene have all had an impact on literature and cultural studies in different ways. These concepts have been used by literary academics to evaluate and analyse the representation of human-environmental relations in literature. Novels, poetry, and other literary works, for example, can shed light on how human cultures have influenced the environment and how the environment has changed human experiences. While reading Hathaway’s piece, I found myself thinking of books that I’ve read that spoke on human-environmental relations. The one that instantly popped into my mind was “Do Androids Dream of Eletric Sheep?” by Philip K Dick. Do all books that talk on the Anthropocene, Plantationocene, and Capitalocen have to be science and noir fiction? Another example was “Walden” by David Henry Thoraeau. Was Hathaway’s new and exciting ideas doomed to be only associated with dystopian bleakness?

In “Marxism and Literature” Ray Williams explores the idea of cultural dominance and the means by which the ruling classes uphold their authority through ideology and language. Williams contends that hegemony functions on several levels, such as the economic, political, and cultural ones, and that it involves negotiation and permission rather than straightforward coercion. Hegemony is used to describe how dominant groups in society maintain their hold on power and authority by influencing the ideas, beliefs, and values that the rest of society accepts in Ray Williams’ book “Marxism and Literature.” Ideology, discourse, and cultural output, including literature and popular culture, are used to accomplish this. Hegemony involves more than just coercion or force; it also involves the swaying of public opinion and the negotiation of agreement. It functions on many different levels, including the economic, political, and cultural ones, and is frequently disputed and questioned by those who want to overthrow the current order. Williams demonstrates how hegemonic ideas and values are propagated and reinforced using literary and popular culture as examples. He demonstrates how dominant groups suppress opposing views and advance their own agendas by exerting control over the tools of cultural production. Williams also analyzes how intellectuals contribute to and resist hegemonic discourse, stating that it is their duty to critically examine the prevailing beliefs of the day. One question that arose when reading was how does Williams’ concept of hegemony differ from traditional Marxist ideas about class struggle? Williams’ concept of hegemony broadens the study to encompass cultural fights and the ways that dominant groups create the ideas and beliefs of society, whereas classic Marxist views concentrate primarily on the economic struggles between the working class and the capitalist class. Williams contends that in addition to using economic tools, the ruling class propagates concepts that advance its objectives through cultural creation. To confront the prevailing notions of our time, one must engage in this cultural conflict, which is a crucial part of the larger effort of social transformation.

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist thinker, has a significant influence on Ray Williams’ discussion of hegemony in “Marxism and Literature.” One of the earliest Marxist philosophers to acknowledge the significance of culture and ideology in preserving capitalist hegemony was Gramsci. According to Gramsci, the ruling class also uses cultural institutions and ideological apparatuses to keep its hold on power in addition to coercion and force. The idea that dominant groups in society maintain their power through influencing the ideas, beliefs, and values that are accepted by the rest of society is what he meant when he referred to this process as cultural hegemony. Williams expands on Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony by contending that literary and cultural output serve as significant battlegrounds in the struggle against prevailing ideologies. He shows how literary texts, like other types of cultural creation, can either support or contradict the prevailing societal views. Williams also emphasizes the role of intellectuals in the fight against hegemony because it is their job to critically examine prevailing beliefs and create alternative discourses that oppose the existing quo. This theme can be found in Gramsci’s writing as well, where he emphasized the need of intellectuals in establishing a counter-hegemony against the prevailing cultural narrative.

Louis Althusser’s “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” dives deep into two spheres of social reproduction in society, ISAs, and RSAs, and discusses what these spheres have implemented in society. Firstly, it is essential to point out that our 21st-century definition of ideologies differs from what Althusser means when he speaks of them. We now know that there are many ideologies because people of different backgrounds hold different beliefs. For example, a capitalist will not have the same ideals (thus influencing their ideologies) as a socialist or a Marxist. Althusser defines ideology as ” representing the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” What is the difference? According to Althusser, ideology does not reflect our natural world but instead reflects the imaginary relationship that we think we have with the world. However, how does that pseudo-relationship manifest, and what upholds these relationships? This is where Althusser begins to break down ISAs and RSAs. RSA, or repressive state apparatuses, are systems in place that are designed to use violence and coercion to uphold and strengthen the ruling class. RSA’s can enforce behavior directly and are things like the police and criminal justice system. ISA, or ideological state apparatuses, are institutions like churches and schools meant to generate ideologies. The two work in conjunction by generating these ideologies (ISA) and forcing us to internalize them (RSA). Althusser’s main point is how do we begin to internalize these ideologies, and how do these ideologies create the inaccurate, imaginary relationship we think we have with the world?

Before he began dissecting this idea, I questioned more ISAs and RSAs. Firstly, do RSAs have internal conflict in the same way that ISAs do? Althusser mentions things like church and school as institutions that fall under ISAs. This idea interested me because historically, there has always been a separation because of church, state, and school. How can the church as an institution collaborate with the school if schools promote secularism?

Furthermore, would changing what institutions we appoint to be ISAs promote or demote internal conflict? It would be disingenuous to point out the internal conflicts also present in RSAs, especially when using a post-2020 lens, but it seems that nine times out of 10, RSAs do a better job at working in concert with each other than ISAs. Is this because ideologies are an intangible culture? Althusser shares his thoughts on whether ideologies are tangible and have a material existence.
His answer starts with defining ideologies vs. ideology. As stated before, ideologies are specific and historical, subject to change when the subject changes. However, ideology is structural. Meaning ideology is “eternal” because it has a place inside of all of us and therefore has a material existence. I disagree with this idea of Althusser’s because what if one decides not to “respond” to the ideological value that calls out to you? What if you chose to ignore the ideological recognition value? On the contrary, does choosing to ignore the ideology value that calls out to you, aren’t you still internalizing it by actively ignoring it?

Nietzsche starts his essay with describing humanities evolution as a brief moment in the lifespan of the universe and describes it as an aberration of nature that is ultimately useless. Why? Because the legislation of knowlege was is a social construct. What decide as to hold as the “turth” and “lies” are decided upon for social purposes. These truths hold weight because want to, not because they are objectively true. Nietzsche then describes humans inability to understand objective truths. He makes us feel small and insignificant as he criticises why we can not begin to understand objective truth. Humans are the only ones who can posses and pass down “human knowledge”. Because of this air of superiority that comes with knowing human specific intellect, our view of the world, our axis, is entirely self centered around humans. This is where the problem begins. With our limited scope of knowledge, how do we begin to understand and perceieve things in its entirety and not in relation to ourselves? Meaning, how can we understand things that are outside our view of knowledge without making it about ourselves? How do we begin to understand truth objectively instead subjectively?

Nietzsche’s questions begin to poke holes in things we thought we knew and make readers question everything. Is the language I use to describe myself really true? What am I? The language I use helps create the shape that lets others recognize me as myself, it is a symbol for myself. This is a representation, everything is a shape. But then, what am I? What is my fake self? What is my true self? Nietzsche’s questions show that what we know (or what we think we know) is less than we we do know. In my Nietzsche induced spiral, I noticed he had a specific gripe with excessive symbolism and metaphors. Metaphors, he says, blur the truth instead of creating “building blocks” to what the original subject was, taking readers further away from the objective truth. Nietzsche gives a leaf as an example. Leaf is a metaphor for something green, grows on trees, and appears in nature. But this leaves out so many thungs that are leaves but don’t fit this description! Language is used to comprehend and communicate our reality, but language does not give access to understand the thing in itself. In order to create these understandings, we use metaphors. Metaphors can allow for a new expression of old ideas but ultimatelty cripple our already feeble understanding of things and do not allow for exploration of the realities of the individual.